MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902160853 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.27923028

Cooley_et_al_data__Agg_Nov2024_dP.csv

2024· dataset· en· W6902160853 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeEcosystemGlobal warmingTemperate climateGreenhouse gasDeforestation (computer science)Climate changeEcosystem services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b><i>A global 'climate opportunity benefit' of regeneration: meta-analysis shows warming from soil CH</i></b><sub><i><strong>4</strong></i></sub><b><i> and N</i></b><sub><i><strong>2</strong></i></sub><b><i>O is small in forests relative to agriculture</i></b>Savannah S. Cooley<sup>1*</sup>, Elisabeth Moore<sup>1</sup>, Jianna Martinez<sup>1</sup>, Jocelyn Fahlen<sup>1</sup>, Erin Maybach<sup>1</sup>, Maya Gollerkeri<sup>1</sup>, Anjali Rao Vasa<sup>1</sup>, Sian Kou-Giesbrecht<sup>2</sup>, Alexandra M. Huddell<sup>3</sup>, Linnea Norton<sup>1</sup>, Kerry Cawse-Nicholson<sup>4</sup>, Ruth DeFries<sup>1</sup>, Maria Uriarte<sup>1</sup>, Duncan N.L. Menge<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup> Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, Columbia University<sup>2</sup> Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie University<sup>3</sup> Department of Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware<sup>4</sup> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology<br>* Corresponding author: sc4751@columbia.edu<b>Abstract</b>Global assessments of ecosystem regeneration as a climate mitigation strategy have traditionally focused on CO<sub>2</sub>, despite the acknowledgement that methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) and nitrous oxide (N<sub>2</sub>O) are also important greenhouse gasses (GHGs). We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that measured soil CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O fluxes in unmanaged regenerating forested and savanna ecosystems, with a focus on understanding biome-specific differences in these GHG fluxes compared to a counterfactual of agricultural land use. We expected most regenerating ecosystems to act as small CH<sub>4 </sub>sinks and relatively larger N<sub>2</sub>O sources, with a net warming combined CH<sub>4</sub>-N<sub>2</sub>O effect. Three of the five forested biomes we studied followed this pattern: subtropical/tropical forest, subtropical/tropical savanna and temperate conifer forest (0.98 ± 0.44, 0.23 ± 0.07, and 0.63 ± 0.37 Mg CO<sub>2</sub>e ha<sup>-1</sup> yr<sup>-1</sup>, respectively). Results suggest that even after 100 years of regeneration, the radiative cooling of the climate from CO<sub>2</sub> sequestration still exceeds the radiative warming driven by the net CH<sub>4</sub>-N<sub>2</sub>O effect among all ecosystems on average globally. We also found that the “climate opportunity benefit” of ecosystem regeneration—the difference of the net CH<sub>4</sub>-N<sub>2</sub>O effects of agriculture vs. regeneration—yields a net cooling effect for all biomes. However, our results underscore that it is unsound to use ecosystem regeneration as a justification for the continuation of fossil fuel emissions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9320.994

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207